Cops Forcibly Take Blood From Drivers Suspected of Drinking

I would rather over-think things than under-think them like most people I know.

I have considered the possibility of DNA information being sold to insurance companies and employers and so on before I ever realized they were doing
this, any other information one shares is sold off too, like all those applications one submits for employment, imagine how much info they rake in at
a job-fair!, better still, think about those poor saps sharing the info to get a job that doesn't even exist because a lot of those job-fairs are
nothing more than market research to determine if it would be viable to open a business there.

I sure wish I could get a cut of the profits for all of the information being traded about me, I might even be able to get by sorta kinda maybe
then.

I really wish more people realized what a GIANT SCAM almost everything is these days.

Here on ATS I am always the unstarred in a stared heavily every post, thread. Not many ever agree with me and I seem to see things always differently
then the majority and sometimes then everyone.

I have spent years thinking about every single thing from the time I was old enough to think at 4 years I thought about "Why does he do that
(smoking, drinking anger, fights)" How does that work and why? I want real answers, but it seems all we have is a multitude of more questions. I have
read read read thousands of book, I try never to rule anything out until very very good reasons that can't be denied, yet even then i realize we may
have a larger view tomorrow and see something missed...

How its legal, and why they get away with it, all comes back to the old adage that, “Driving is a privilege not a right”. What this essentially
means is that you form a contract between yourself and the DMV when you apply for a drivers license. You agree to follow their contractual terms,
including submitting to breath and blood analysis, when you apply for that license.

You have the right to refuse, but then you lose your license for being in “breach of contract”. Additionally, they will often take refusal as a
sign of “reasonable suspicion”, and have a judge swear out a warrant to force your compliance (this is how they get away with “no refusal”
roadblocks). The roadblocks themselves, and the fact that they are “no refusal” have to be advertised in advance.

This is the same as you contractually agreeing to submit to a TSA search when you accept an airlines “contract of carriage”. The government uses
these types of contracts when they know that they have you over a barrel, and need to travel, but they want to violate your rights legally. Expect to
see even more “privileges” with special term contracts waiving your rights as we proceed down the path to the inevitable “police state” we are
becoming.

Maybe if you had a better idea of how to catch and prevent drunk driving we could scrap the whole thing.

People subvert laws written in the blood of innocents in the name of freedom. What should be done?

This is just a pretext to yet another loss of rights and freedoms.

If they can do this for this reason, why not other reasons? Once it becomes accepted in the public eye, it's on to the next.

Since there is a law that states either you give the breathalyzer or be considered guilty, isn't that enough? No, this is much more.

They are holding people down, restraining them, twisting their necks and drawing blood against their will. And what if you are NOT drunk? Same
treatment.

Consider it. You are not drunk but the cop says you are. You are detained, strapped down, arm across your neck and head, needle stuck in you...and you
are innocent. I believe you would have a different opinion of this if it actually happened to you.

This freedom ranting is getting old.... your not free to do something stupid that might kill me. If it wrongfully inconveniences some people that
isn't a reason to scrap it, but to improve the methods by which we screen and hold officers accountable for their assessments.

Im sure future technology will remove this temporary measure.

Then maybe a new thread will pop up about how yelling "FIRE" in a theater being illegal is just another government attempt to murder us all.

I can't comment a lot on the rest, but I can tell you exactly where the sample ends up. I used to work in a private forensic lab. My main job was
testing those very blood samples (I didn't do the alcohol tests, I did the drug tests, but 99% of the time both are done for the same blood sample).
Basically, it gets shipped to either a state or private lab, maintaining the chain of custody ofc. once in the lab, it goes into a gigantic fridge for
storage. It usually gets the alcohol test first, probably within days. Drug tests might take a while depending on how backed up the queue is (in many
cases at my work, months). After testing is done, the samples are retained by the lab or the state in a secure area for evidence (for blood, back in
the fridge). They stay there in case there is a need for retesting (for example, the analyst is made to appear in court, but doesn't work there
anymore, someone who DOES work there has to retest it). Most labs from my understanding keep blood samples for 7 years, long after the blood is all
dried up and totally worthless for anything. At the end of the 7 years, they are logged out of the system and destroyed with the other biohaz waste.

Originally posted by jude11
Well, what if you haven't done anything wrong, you are not drunk and are forced to the straps and have your blood taken? Still ok with it?

Why then would the Police be wasting their time stopping you? The only reason they would force blood from you is if you refuse a breathalyser or
roadside sobriety test, which they would only ask you to do if you have been seen to drive erratically, causing them to suspect you are DUI.

In what world do you think it is is acceptable for people to drive around under the influence and be able to refuse any attempts to prove your
innocence by way of a breathalyser etc? If you have been stopped by the Police who suspect you of being DUI and you're not, then you should jump at
the chance to take a breathalyser! If you do refuse, then certainly the Police should be expected to obtain evidence by other means.

I am really at a loss here as to what the problem is. They need probable cause to even stop you, much less take the blood in which case you are
probably DUI and deserve having the book thrown at you.

Originally posted by jude11
Well, what if you haven't done anything wrong, you are not drunk and are forced to the straps and have your blood taken? Still ok with it?

Why then would the Police be wasting their time stopping you? The only reason they would force blood from you is if you refuse a breathalyser or
roadside sobriety test, which they would only ask you to do if you have been seen to drive erratically, causing them to suspect you are DUI.

In what world do you think it is is acceptable for people to drive around under the influence and be able to refuse any attempts to prove your
innocence by way of a breathalyser etc? If you have been stopped by the Police who suspect you of being DUI and you're not, then you should jump at
the chance to take a breathalyser! If you do refuse, then certainly the Police should be expected to obtain evidence by other means.

I am really at a loss here as to what the problem is. They need probable cause to even stop you, much less take the blood in which case you are
probably DUI and deserve having the book thrown at you.

Quite simply because the police have been demonstrating more and more that they are above the law. So what reason do we have to believe that they
actually have a suspicion but are not acting on their own god complex?

Please do not insult anyone by saying that the police do not act on their own, do not use force when it isn't necessary, do not plant evidence, do
not falsify reports...

Truly do not know what is more disturbing/disgusting; watching six cops forcefully strap-down and blood rape innocent Americans on US soil as they
scream out ""What country am I in!"" or the spineless ball-less Americans who have been indoctrinated to see "no problem" with it.

... and yes, every person in that video was considered innocent at the time, but who cares anymore about such things as innocence, rights or that
countless Americans who gave-up all their tomorrows to ensure that things like this would never happen in America.

Any person who takes part in this are traitors and deserves what ever they get after they finally abuse the wrong person.

You're obviously also a fan of the melodramatic as well... Yes, some police overstep the mark, same as anyone in any job taking it too far,
but seriously, out of the many ten's of thousands of Police/Public interactions in the USA everyday, only a very small fraction ever fall into that
category, the rest are perfectly normal and within the law.

Look at this way, if you did get stopped by the Police for no reason at all, then just do the breathalyser, prove them wrong and be on your way. If
they do get shirty with you and overstep their powers, then take their number and report them. In the good Ol' USA you should be able to sue them and
make some spare change too. You can do so here in the UK and we're always being told what a Police state we apparently are....

Answer me this, if you are stopped, it is probably for a reason (driving erratically) so why would you refuse a breathalyser which would prove your
innocence of having had a drink and so preclude any need for a blood test? The only reason to refuse such a test is because you're guilty, or I
suppose you could just be an idiot who likes to cause confrontation.

I'm sorry, I really fail to see what it is you're getting your knickers so tightly wound up about. What next, you'll be complaining about them
taking your fingerprints, or your picture?

Bottom line is, DO NOT DRINK AND DRIVE, then there will never be a reason to ever have to go through with this.

Oh please - Have you watched the whole video? Everyone of those people was there for 2 reasons, namely they were suspected of driving DUI and then
refused to co-operate with the Police by the roadside.

The reason the guy is kicking and screaming is because he has had a drink, is not fit to drive and he knows he is about to be caught for it, not
because he is a "patriot", so you can stop your bleeting about "traitors".

This is such a weird one. It seems so wrong to be strapping people down and taking blood, but at the same time it seems very wrong to essentially let
someone get away with a crime that they will most likely repeat, often with deadly results. Losing you license after driving drunk is not punishment
enough for what I would compare to recklessly shooting off a gun in the city.

I'm really on the fence about this one. I got a DUI over a year ago, and when I asked the cop at the station what would happen if I refused the
breathalyzer he told me he would have to take me to the hospital and get my blood drawn. "What if I don't consent to that?" Tough. To be fair,
the guy was awesome and we ended up having a pretty nice chat when he drove me home. I was still floored though. I guess I missed that part of the
drivers exam or the fine print.

So the question is, what's worse? Taking someone's blood after they've entered into a contract, or letting them walk scott free and potentially do
the same thing again.

What if someone isn't stopped for weaving, but ends up hitting a car full of kids? Then do you think it's OK? What if they kill someone? At what
point is it acceptable to take the blood forcibly? I think there is a line, and I don't know where to draw it.

Also a few quick things I would like to share with you all that I learned post DUI. First of all, don't drive drunk. I wasn't sloppy, and didn't
realize I was still drunk after waking up from a nap. That dumbass mistake (along with not having cold/allergy medicine) has cost me probably $10k,
my insurance is $400 a month, the breathalyzer in my car was a huge embarrassment and pain in the ass, I had to go to 4 couseling sessions at $120 a
pop, had to go to a ten hour class that was horribly boring and at times depressing, I spent a year going to court, had to sit in jail for a day, felt
horrible about myself and what could have happened if I had hit someone, had to tell my family and a few girlfriends... I'm lucky I don't plan on
ever having a job where this will really matter, but for a lot of folks that's a huge issue. What I'm saying is it's not worth it. EVER.

Realize that the .08 thing is essentially a lie. You can be charged with a DUI for almost any BAC level. A lady in one of my classes got one at I
believe .04.

I am not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice, just my opinion. The field sobriety test IS a scam in most cases. If the cop thinks you're drunk,
you're going to the station regardless of how well you do here (I did awesome on mine). The only purpose of these tests is A if the cop is really
unsure, which they won't be, and B piling on more evidence.

It is worth it to retain private counsel. They will work harder for you. I got a very good deal that I wouldn't have if I had gone with a public
defender.

Oh please - Have you watched the whole video? Everyone of those people was there for 2 reasons, namely they were suspected of driving DUI and then
refused to co-operate with the Police by the roadside.

The reason the guy is kicking and screaming is because he has had a drink, is not fit to drive and he knows he is about to be caught for it, not
because he is a "patriot", so you can stop your bleeting about "traitors".

Oh please - Have you watched the whole video? Everyone of those people was there for 2 reasons, namely they were suspected of driving DUI and then
refused to co-operate with the Police by the roadside.

The reason the guy is kicking and screaming is because he has had a drink, is not fit to drive and he knows he is about to be caught for it, not
because he is a "patriot", so you can stop your bleeting about "traitors".

So you have judged him guilty without due process...

Ok then.

Peace

Er, no.. That was a pitifully poor attempt at putting words in my mouth as well as sidestepping the issue, namely why are they in that position
in the first place?

Police have an obligation to collect evidence if they believe an offence has been committed. If the suspect refuses to voluntarily supply said
evidence, then it should be taken involuntarily. Or are you arguing for a system where people can ignore the laws regarding DUI and then just simply
refuse to give a sample which would prove either way if they were guilty and enable them to walk off scot free?

Oh please - Have you watched the whole video? Everyone of those people was there for 2 reasons, namely they were suspected of driving DUI and then
refused to co-operate with the Police by the roadside.

The reason the guy is kicking and screaming is because he has had a drink, is not fit to drive and he knows he is about to be caught for it, not
because he is a "patriot", so you can stop your bleeting about "traitors".

So you have judged him guilty without due process...

Ok then.

Peace

Er, no.. That was a pitifully poor attempt at putting words in my mouth as well as sidestepping the issue, namely why are they in that position
in the first place?

Police have an obligation to collect evidence if they believe an offence has been committed. If the suspect refuses to voluntarily supply said
evidence, then it should be taken involuntarily. Or are you arguing for a system where people can ignore the laws regarding DUI and then just simply
refuse to give a sample which would prove either way if they were guilty and enable them to walk off scot free?

In the good Ol' USA you should be able to sue them and make some spare change too.

And I see you are not from North America at all.

Nice stance but oh, so wrong.

Peace

I fail to see how me not being from the USA has any bearing on this - DUI is treated the same the world over, it is NOT ACCEPTABLE.

You say I am wrong but have proffered very little, if anything, to state why and what alternatives there are.

Police have the JOB to collect evidence from what is available. Not to break the law and forcibly TAKE evidence without a search warrant nor to take
evidence from a person without charging a person with a crime first..

To force people to give up rights to illegal search and seizure because of "Suspicion" is tantamount to a Police State...period.

This allows police to state at anytime and anywhere that they "Suspect" wrongdoing therefore giving them the right to break the law.

And this precedence can be used in any situation if it is allowed to continue. It's not only about DUI but about everything else it will unleash.

Oh please - Have you watched the whole video? Everyone of those people was there for 2 reasons, namely they were suspected of driving DUI and then
refused to co-operate with the Police by the roadside.

The reason the guy is kicking and screaming is because he has had a drink, is not fit to drive and he knows he is about to be caught for it, not
because he is a "patriot", so you can stop your bleeting about "traitors".

Who are you to decide that the guy is "not fit to drive" or if he had a "drink"?

Just because a cop pulled him over in a DUI check point or other and just because he asserts his rights means guilt to you? You have no proof
but base his guilt on your own personal feelings, assumption and agenda.

Asserting one's rights (not "co-operating") can not be used against an American as guilt or suspicion of a crime.

Americans have the right not to consent or co-operate with police, that does not mean guilt or does it give the police the right to abuse you.
Freedom haters always use the "if you have nothing to hide or guilty, why not consent to a search or "co-operate" excuse, as if it means anything
to those who honor and respect American rights.

Now, mind your own country's affairs... go back to your crown worship and bend your submissive knee to anyone you like but do not preach to me about
what I should or should not defend as treasonous in America.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.